In Paris, Stewart Patrick analyzes prospects for a French proposal in which the UN Security Council would adopt a “responsibility not to veto” norm in situations of mass atrocities. Despite tremendous challenges in implementing such a code of conduct, he concludes that it is ultimately a goal worth pursuing.
The videos depicting beheadings of Western civilians by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have shocked audiences worldwide. But perhaps more surprising is something more mundane: the distinctly British accent of the English-speaking, knife-wielding militant.
When Western leaders gather for the NATO summit in Wales next week, they will be expected to answer calls to revive the old alliance in order to confront Russia’s gradual invasion of Ukraine. Despite this new clarity of purpose, however, the alliance remains profoundly divided.
The marketplace for medicines is highly fragmented and globalized, posing acute public health threats. Stewart Patrick and Jeffrey Wright assert that a global coalition of medicines regulators, designed with distinct features in mind, would better ensure the safety and integrity of our medicines.
Tod Lindberg defends the concept of the international community. At its best, the international community represents the embodiment of liberal normative ideals exerting an influence on international politics, though its many invocations may fall short in encapsulating this ideal.
International institutions provide a platform for promoting, formalizing, and enforcing rules, norms, and regimes that regulate state behavior. As a leader in many of these fora, the United States is well positioned to promote its national interests through multilateral partnerships. Multilateral consensus is uniquely capable of legitimizing U.S. action and spreading burdens of leadership.
Asked by Felix Seidler, from Institute for Security Policy at the University of Kiel, Germany Author: Stewart M. Patrick
Despite its strategic "rebalancing" toward Asia, the United States is unlikely to sponsor a collective defense organization for the Asia-Pacific, for at least three reasons: insufficient solidarity among diverse regional partners, fear of alienating China, and the perceived advantages of bilateral and ad-hoc security arrangements.
Both China and India have been increasingly active participants in global health governance, but their contributions thus far fall short of international expectations and also fail to offer a viable, sustainable alternative to the existing governance paradigm.
A comprehensive guide to how international institutions, governments, and NGOs around the world are attempting to prevent and contain armed conflict. This is part of the Global Governance Monitor, an interactive feature tracking multilateral approaches to several global challenges.
Distinguished professors Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry argue that the United States should initiate a new phase of democratic internationalism based on the "pull of success rather than the push of power."
ASEAN is the most significant multilateral institution in Asia but is unequipped to handle the region's most pressing economic and security challenges. CFR Fellow Joshua Kurlantzick makes recommendations for how ASEAN can bolster its capacity—and how the United States can help.
"Principled compromise, prioritizing China, compassion, democracy-support, addressing detainee and drone policy as blemishes on our brand, and re-balancing soft and hard power tools ought to be touchstones of a post-2012 GOP foreign policy," says Mark P. Lagon.